David Cobb to Crash Debate, Risk Arrest 64
RobertB-DC writes "The Washington Post reports that Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb plans to travel to St. Louis to protest his exclusion from the presidential debate. In a press release, the Cobb campaign says to expect 'non-violent civil disobedience' as the candidate enters the restricted area around the debate site." Alan Keyes tried that once. So did Ralph Nader.
I remember good old Nader... (Score:2)
Inconsistency (Score:2)
Re:Inconsistency (Score:2)
Who w
Re:Inconsistency (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Inconsistency (Score:2)
Re:Inconsistency (Score:2)
Hence my problem with it by someone who wants to be the chief executor of the law.
Re:Inconsistency (Score:2)
Re:Inconsistency (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Inconsistency (Score:2)
I don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
The media, in general, doesn't seem to be very friendly to protestors these days.
Re:I don't understand (Score:2)
Some Republicans have donated money to his campaign and Nader's with the idea that votes for them are coming out of Kerry's camp.
The whole "make your vote count by wasting it" idea.
Re:I don't understand (Score:2)
I don't think third party candidates are going to get many votes this election.
Re:I don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
You say this and you have a Robert Anton Wilson quote in your sig? He's doing this because he can, because he should, and because it's his right and for the benefit of America that his voice is heard even if he is not allowed to speak aloud.
He is not doing it for himself. Or for what the media is friendly towards. People can think he's a wacko, but people as a rule are stupid. Individuals are what's he after, not "people".
There's a fine line in the difference, and it is abstract, perhaps intangible. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Re:Oh.... (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand (Score:1, Troll)
Even George Washington used military force against civil disobeyers.
Re:I don't understand (Score:2)
The founding fathers, along with some of the biggest revolutions of all time(sit-ins for equal rights, just about the entire life of Ghandi) have been carried out through peaceful protest. What are on?
Re:I don't understand (Score:1)
This is why some of us in the tin-foil hat crowd think that Cobb may be a Democratic operative. There is some sketchy evidence that prominent Democrats (such as George Soros) funded Cobb so that the Greens wouldn't endorse Nader at their convention. Cobb's "safe-state" strategy also works well to keep the Greens out of the Democrats' hait.
Re:I don't understand (Score:1)
It just doesn't matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as Members of Congress, Senators and Presidents get their main financial contributions from lobbygroups and multinationals (think Bush and the Carlyle Group and the Oilmultis), Democracy in the US just means that you intellectual halfwits vote for the guy with the more commercials.
Re:It just doesn't matter. (Score:2)
Re:It just doesn't matter. (Score:1)
And you, the one with the outstanding grasp of the English language, are the genius?
Re:Turfers behind OpenDebates, why Slashdot? (Score:2)
Taking wisdom from people's signatures. (And I cant find the exact quote right now.)
The problem with Libertarianism isn't I must be Free, but that other jerk must be free as well.
Personally, I think that is an OK price to pay.
If you hear both the "extremist wackos" and the "progressives" then people in favor of open debates h
Well.. (Score:2)
From his
Re:Well.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:2)
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:2, Insightful)
Have more debates or whatever. The people should rightfully expect to hear the views of all/most of the candidates BEFORE we decide who has a "legitimate chance" of winning the presidency. No one gets to 15-20% of the vote without a lot of exposure that we haven't been giving these 3rd party candidates a chance to get.
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:2)
I agree though, mathmatical ability to win the election should be the deciding line.
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:1, Informative)
Here's the breakdown of the four:
Badnarik is on 48, all but New Hampshire and Oklahoma. He's the Libertarian Candidate.
For the following, I'm excluding what's listed as "write-in."
Peroutka is on 38. He's the candidate for the Constitution Party.
Nader is on 34. No idea how often the page is updated for the various court cases with him.
Cobb is on 28. Don't know if he can mathematically win with whatever states those are.
Here's the breakd [politics1.com]
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:5, Insightful)
It's possible that you just don't want a multiple-party system, and that's fine. But be honest about it - it's not necessairily against our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, even if it's against yours. Frankly, I'd like it for an "outsider" to be able to ask questions in a debate - though first we should work on giving the two already in the debate the ability to do so, in order to, uh, debate. The whole thing's a sham.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:1)
That's what we call a straw man. You could restrict the debates to candidates who were on the ballot of enough states to theoretically win enough electoral votes to be elected. That happens to be six can
Re: (Score:2)
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:2)
-russ
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:1)
I don't know what country you're from, but in the US the Presidential Office is held by exactly one person. So, there's only one person who has a chance of winning the election. The only real question is who that person is. Maybe letting anyone who has the ability and want to win should be allowed to speak in the debate
What "chance" means (Score:2)
There is only one person (at most) who will actually win the election. Everyone else (who meets the constitutional requirements) has a chance (even me!), however slim that chance may be.
Here is a more common example that will, hopefully, illustrate "chance" more clearly: If you flip a coin, only one side will face up once the coin has landed and stopped moving. But until t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:2)
Make a provision for what qualifies a candidate:
Any candidate that is on enough state ballots to THEORETICALLY win the election, is invited to the debates.
Write ins and anyone not on enough ballots, are not. To invite them would cause too many logisitical problems that you outlined above. But if winning the election is atleast a possibility, then they would be welcome. I believe this would make it a 3 man debate(Cobb is on enough, i believe), I don't believe Nader is on eno
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:2)
Otherwise, I agree with you 100%. The deciding rule should be "on the ballot in enough states to be electable", not "already has enough mindshare".
-russ
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, democracy usually implies that you have more choices than just the two branches of the business party (ahem, excuse my sarcasm).
Anyway - here in Norway (and it's the same in pretty much any other democratic country) we have about 8 main political parties, and quite a few smaller ones, ranging from communist to ultra-rightwing. In the pre-election TV-debates even parties which only have about 0.5-1 percent in polls are represented - in total around 10-12 people.
Now, I've been following the US presi
Re:At some point common sense must prevail (Score:3, Interesting)
If these were real debates, then it's important that you bring in as many views as possible, not because the "smaller" candidates might have a chance of winning the election, but because they are the ones who will ask the hard questions and to help expose the truth behind the candidates so that the population can make a more informed
Here is some common sense (Score:2)
That would mean inviting the following:
Badnarik - 49 states, 527 possible electors
Cobb - 28 states, 286 possible electors
Nader - 36 states, 299 possible electors (in court in 5 more for a total of 41 with 388 electors)
Peroutka - 38 states for 366 electors ( 1 in court that would add 4 electors)
See isn't that easy. These four, along with Bush and Kerry are the only candidates that can win the
Re: (Score:2)
so this is what democracy looks like (Score:2)
so sad
this is a travesty to democracy
Not so. (Score:2)
I'm planing on doing it for the next set (Score:2)
Badnarik is going to be there as well (Score:1)
I smell a rat in that The Green Party seems to be getting the publicity for this when the Libertarians have opnely made it a joint deal and mentioned the Greens in their press release, but there's no mention of the Libertarians or Badnarik in the story or on the Green website right now.
If they are smar
why the silly rules? (Score:1)
That said, I cannot figure out why the silly rules that the candidates cannot speak to one another, can't come near the other, etc... WTF? I'd prefer the Democrats to win, but why are so wussies? Can't they say "we want a debate and Kerry'd like to call Bush a LIAR to his face!" ?
Maybe if I lived in the US I'd understand this thing
Libertarians not to be left out (Score:1)
It's not just Cobb (Score:1)